The tumultuous and extraordinary confusion that enveloped the US presidential election this morning will certainly bring demands for a re-examination of the way Americans elects their leaders.

Although president Bill Clinton remains in charge of the country until January 20, there was no escaping the sense of deepening political crisis as the Democratic candidate, vice-president Al Gore, first conceded the contest to Republican George W Bush, and then retracted his concession.

Under scrutiny will be the first-past-the-post system that gives the candidate who wins the popular vote in any given state all that state's electoral college votes.

In Florida, for example, where a recount was under way, Mr Bush and Mr Gore effectively halved the vote between them. In a rational world, that would give them half each of Florida's college votes. But one fiftieth of a per cent looks likely to be enough not only to give the state to one of the candidate's but also, this year, the entire contest.

The electoral college itself may also come under review. The founding fathers of the US intended it as a fail-safe device to ensure that the country's government was insulated from the wilder vagaries of public opinion.

In other words, the framers of the Constitution did not entirely trust democracy. By creating a college of electors, they effectively hoped to keep control of the process.

In an era when democracy is deemed by the US to be the best governing system - not only for itself but the rest of the world - such considerations seem out-of-date. The US electorate is certainly better educated, better informed on the issues (when it wants to be), and more easily communicated with than at any time in the country's history.

The impact of the Greens' presidential candidate, Ralph Nader, on this year's result will also be carefully deconstructed. There is really no room in the US presidential election structure for third-party candidates, so dominant have the Democrats and Republicans become.

But it is palpably absurd that, in a country of about 260 million, only two shades of opinion can gain effective expression in its representative institutions. It would also appear fundamentally un-democratic for the Gore camp, as it did in this instance, to tell Nader supporters that their votes are wasted and will help Bush.

Although this may be exactly what has happened, this outcome cannot be blamed solely on Nader, but on a system that is so inflexible and outmoded that the will of the people may only be very imperfectly expressed.

Another post-mortem inquest will centre on polling methods. The exit polls are normally highly reliable, making it possible to project a national result from the morning's voting in just a few east coast states.

But that did not work this time. The exit polls gave Gore the victory in Florida, only to retract the verdict dramatically a short while later. This happened while people were still voting on the west coast. This premature "result' may thus have influenced voting in key swing states like Oregon and Washington, or even discouraged voters from turning out at all - because they believed it was all over.

The intrinsic imbalances within the electoral system may also be one reason why so many Americans do not bother to vote at all. Although turnout was reportedly up this time, probably 40% of eligible voters still boycotted the polls - perhaps because they believe the system does not and cannot reflect their opinions.

When the dust settles on the 2000 race, these and many other questions will come to the fore - including, perhaps, a move towards some form of proportional representation.